Regional

So the 2010 Edgar Kaplan Winter Regional is done, severely impacted by the weather. I originally planned to play three days, and finished up playing just one, a bracketed round-robin event yesterday. We won the top bracket, winning 6 out of 7 matches, and collecting oodles of gold points, so it was a good day.

But it was a tough day's bridge. I only remember one slam in the 49 boards, and that was the other way from where Elwood and I were sitting. (Our opponents made no attempt in the bidding, so that was a swing in our favor.) There were a few game swings, but we spent most of the day grinding out smallish victories with part-score swings. That's a perfectly good way to win, of course, but it means you know the match is close all the time and you don't dare let your concentration slip for even one board.

One interesting decision came on this hand. I picked up
JTxx
AKTxxx
-
KTx
as dealer, vulnerable against not. Opening 1H is obvious enough, but the auction rapidly escalated.
N E S W
1H 1S 3H 3S
4H 4S P P
?
If you are a point-count junkie, you probably are confused at this point. Elwood's 3H raise is pre-emptive, meaning that he has some hearts and some distribution, but not too much in the way of high cards. You have already opened the bidding and raised to game on your 11 points, knowing that the opponents probably have more points total than our side. So what is there to think about? Of course, points are meaningless for a hand like this. I knew Elwood had at most one spade, and very few high cards in the majors. There was no way to tell until I saw the dummy, but if he produced one or two good cards in clubs, this hand could easily generate eleven tricks and a vulnerable game. Conversely, what have we got in defence? No more than one heart trick. Probably a spade trick. Can we get a couple of tricks in the minors and so beat 4S? Probably, but it's not a sure thing. I think that if you look at this hand the right way, the scale tips very heavily in favor of bidding 5H.



At the other table, the opposing N-S elected to defend 4S, and collected 100. When hearts showed up as 2-1, I was quickly claiming 11 tricks and 11 IMPs.

Here's another high-level auction where I perhaps chose to live dangerously. In second seat, nobody vulnerable, I picked up
x
AT8x
Axxxx
J9x
and saw the auction start
N E S W
P
P 4S Dbl P
?
On the one hand, if Elwood has enough to double, my two bullets guarantee a reasonable plus score, and risking the sure plus by bidding has to be a questionable decision. On the other hand, if he doesn't have the aces, Elwood must have some meaty middle cards, and if he has a really good hand we might well have 11 or 12 tricks. This is the first board of the final match, and the opponents are one of our strongest competitors. I decided to go for it, and was lucky to survive.



4NT indicated that I had two places to play. If I was going to bid, I didn't want to pick one of the red suits unilaterally. The problem with responding to a takeout double of 4S is that you can't assume that the doubler has four hearts. He is bidding under pressure, and you have to allow for that. We settled into our best fit, but the contract is far from cold. I won the spade lead and took a losing trump finesse. Now I could ruff the next spade and draw trumps, but they had to be 2-2. When that passed off successfully, I could eliminate clubs and run the QH, guaranteeing only one heart loser. (As I look at it now, I'm thinking that it would have been smarter to play AD and a diamond, rejecting the finesse. But at the table I “felt” that the KD was onside. So much for table presence!)

So the game came home. Our opponents at the other table took 300, so that was a 3 IMP swing to us. A heavy blow, considering that we won the match by 2 IMPs.

What a mess!

This blizzard is playing havoc with the city in general and the regional in particular. Elwood played yesterday, and described conditions outside as awful. He was in a bracketed round-robin, and his final-round opponents dropped out, meaning that he got to go home early. He said he was grateful, since otherwise he might not have made it home. Today, I was originally scheduled to play, but that's not happening, and tomorrow is questionable at best. Agent 99 is still trapped in Cincinnati, and won't get back here until Wednesday sometime, so whether I play on a team with Goldie tomorrow depends on whether we can find a fourth. As an alternative, I suppose we could play in a senior pairs or something, depending on how her other partner(s) are doing. It's all a shambles, really.

It's very unfortunate for the GNYBA and New York bridge in general. This is the biggest snowstorm to hit the city in a number of years, but even so I expect everything to be back to more-or-less normal within a day or two. The City is really pretty good about plowing the roads, restoring power where it drops out, and stuff like that. Which means that if the storm had arrived just two or three days earlier, there would likely have been little impact on the regional. As it is, Dr. Evil couldn't have arranged the timing to do more damage. I'm sure that attendance will be way down for Sunday and Monday, and it will probably be low for the other days too. Very disappointing.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas everybody. We aren't having a white christmas, but we have a blizzard to look forward to (Sunday night / Monday morning), so everybody take care travelling to the regional.

Edgar Kaplan Winter Regional

This week, there are only two topics on my mind. First up, Christmas is nearly here, and I'm trying to plan how I'm going to finish my gift shopping (basically done), finish my food shopping (nearly all to happen Thursday/Friday), and produce my usual Christmas dinner masterpiece on Saturday. No worries, as the Aussies say.

The other thing is the Edgar Kaplan Winter Regional in New York, which is next week from the 26th to the 30th. I don't really need any gold points myself, but Agent 99 needs quite a few to get to Life Master. And in addition, there's a client (or potential client) at the Manhattan who needs about 15 gold - I'll call her Goldie. So I've agreed to play with Agent 99 in a Golden Opportunity Pairs, and Goldie is playing with another Life Master in the same event. Then the next day, the four of us team up in a round-robin. That should provide a fast route to a few gold, because the whole team has a total of only about 2000 master points, and we must be in with a good chance to win whatever bracket we finish up in.

No pressure, except Goldie's husband (they both play at the Manhattan, sometimes even together) has promised to stalk me and haunt me if she doesn't get enough gold, on the grounds that he isn't going to be able to sleep until she gets them, so why not share the pain.

I'm also going to play a bracketed Round Robin with Elwood, but that should be a relaxing wind-down compared to the earlier efforts. Tell me again - this is fun, right?

2010 Gold Cup

OK, finally I see the news. "My" team, the Nick Stevens team, has survived the quarter-finals and will be heading to the finals weekend showdown. Go team!

Concealed Splinters And 4-card Raises

Splinter bids are bids that (by agreement) show partner a trump fit, a raise to game, and shortness in a side suit. This is terrifically useful information for assessing how well the two hands fit together, and splinters should be used at almost every opportunity.

There are a couple of tweaks that can be made, though. One observation is that usually, a splinter could be either a singleton or a void. Singletons are much more common, of course, but if you do happen to get a void, it would be nice to be able to distinguish it. Another thought is that the “traditional” splinter uses three responses to distinguish shortages in three suits. This is easy to use, but a tad inefficient. If you use one response to indicate that there is a shortage somewhere, a relay can be used to identify exactly where, if partner wants to know. And if he doesn't ask, you can bid game without revealing where the shortage is.

Another leaf on the tree of Niggle is the matter of jump-shift responses to major-suit openings, and using them for different flavors of raise. I don't like Bergen Raises, but the 4-card raises in Shep's 2/1 make sense to me. In addition, it's fair to say that if you don't need or want to use jump-shift responses as natural and strong, you need to find a good use for them, and that's not quite as easy as it sounds. Clearly distinguishing an assortment of 4-card raises seems like a very useful idea.

Putting all this together, you find that everything fits quite neatly. We include 2NT in the pantheon of jump-raises, and we include 3NT in the range of double-jump raises. Now, the cheapest jump raise is a concealed splinter. So 1H-2S and 1S-2NT are raises to game that include 4 trumps and a singleton somewhere. If Opener wants to find out where (ie usually), he bids the next step as a relay, and Responder bids the suit of the shortage, or bids the trump suit for the one suit he can't mention below 3. That is:
1H-2S; 2NT (relay) - 3C/3D/3H with a singleton C/D/S respectively. 1S-2NT; 3C (relay) - 3D/3H/3S with a singleton D/H/C respectively. This all leaves plenty of room for Opener to start q-bidding if slam is starting to look attractive. Note that if Responder q-bids the splinter suit subsequently, he is indicating the singleton ace.

We have only used one response so far, the cheapest jump-shift. There are 4 other single-jump responses, and these are used in reverse order of strength to indicate a 4+card raise (this idea being lifted from Shep's 2/1).
1H-2S 1S-2N Splinter (above)
1H-2N 1S-3C game-forcing raise without shortage (equivalent to Jacoby 2NT)
1H-3C 1S-3D 4-card limit raise
1H-3D 1S-3H 4-card mixed raise (weak but includes a defensive trick, an A or K outside trumps)
1H-3H 1S-3S pre-emptive, no defensive trick

Next we move up to the double-jump raises. The cheapest one is a concealed void splinter, showing a raise to game with 4 trumps and a void somewhere. As with the singleton splinters a level lower, a relay is used to locate the actual void. So,
1H-3S; 3N (relay) -4C/4D/4H shows a void C/D/S respectively.
1S-3N; 4C (relay) -4D/4H/4S shows a void D/H/C respectively.

At this point, we can look back and see that we have an array of raises with 4-card support, and can distinguish singleton and void splinters, which is a lot more than most people have in their bag of tricks. [infomercial voice]But wait, there's more.[/infomercial]

We actually have a few bids spare now. The double-jump raises, that most people use for splinters, are available for some different meaning. There is a type of splinter used by Opener called an Auto-splinter. For example, the sequence 1C – 1S; 4C! would indicate 4-card support for spades and a raise to game that includes 6 solid clubs (and a shortage somewhere else, therefore). This is off the main track of splinters, as the most important part of the message isn't actually the shortage but rather the honking great source of tricks. But it's still a good idea, and I think it makes sense to make that type of raise available to Responder also. So, for example, the sequence 1S – 4C! would show a hand like KJxx/xx/x/AKQT9x. It's true that you could start to bid this hand by bidding clubs, or by showing a diamond splinter. But I don't think either of those routes is really going to convey the combination of a very good suit with 4-card trump support.

Now we're talking. All I have to do is sell Agent 99 and Elwood on the idea.

Misadventures In Manhattan

While still only playing once or twice a week, I've managed to be busy enough to make blogging seem like a chore. I've been getting some up and down results, too, winning one day and coming in nearly last the next. A session with Agent 99 rang up 64%, which was only good enough for second but had at least one hand worth mentioning.



This auction is certainly not one to be proud of. Agent 99 was not inspired by her collection of queens and jacks, and downgraded it to only a 2S raise. That was questionable, and the failure to bid four when she got another chance is also hard to swallow. On the other hand, she has at least a technical defence in that the computer analysis says that nine tricks is the limit of the hand. But as a practical matter, most of the declarers in spades made ten tricks, and half of them were in game. I wrapped up ten tricks without too much trouble, even though I forced an entry to dummy in diamonds to take the spade finesse, instead of the other way round.

So why was this a notable deal? For the last couple of weeks, I've added the beer card to the list of things to do. This was the first deal where I actually managed to land it.

For the last few weeks, I've sat East-West most of the time I've played. It's been particularly noticeable to me, therefore, that by some quirk of randomness, the computer has been dealing the cards heavily North-South. That previously-mentioned session, Agent 99 and I were each declarer 4 times, while we defended 16 times. The day before, playing with a client, was similar. I know, it's the same for everybody, and should actually favor good defenders (we aren't necessarily demons, but one reason I enjoy playing with Agent 99 is that we are usually on the same wavelength in defence). But honestly, it wears you down when you pick up hand after hand with only a couple of face cards.

With Elwood, I sat North-South, and this came up.



East was an experienced A player and director, while West looked like a client, so I assumed that the 2NT overcall would be decent values and shape. That left both Elwood and myself with some interesting hand evaluation questions. Elwood decided that with further intervention possible, he should show the heart support immediately, rather than rebid his seven-card suit. I then had no idea how good my hand was with a void in partner's suit and strength in his splinter suit. On the other hand, a splinter bid should show at least mild slam interest, and where can Elwood's strength lie? I figured his spades should be very good, in which case I should be able to get the diamond losers away, and so I jumped to 6H.

Then when faced with the actual dummy and the QD opening lead, I decided that the best line of play would be the opposite of what I had envisioned, also. I ruffed the opening lead, and cross-ruffed clubs and diamonds ignoring the spade suit altogether. That seemed to me the plan least likely to be tripped up by the distribution. Twelve tricks rolled in without a problem.

So far, Agent 99 and I haven't had too much at-the-table experience with our 2D and 2NT openings. The 2NT came up once, getting us a good board when the opponents bid 3S just making while the field was in 3H making ten tricks. In the same session, Agent 99 missed a chance to open 2D by miscounting her points and opening 1C instead. Making eight tricks for +90 scored matchpoints for going positive, because 2NT proved to be too much for a few declarers, and if my hand bid, people got way too high. I don't have the hand record, but my hand was something like Jxx/9xxx/QTxxx/J which means that faced with a 2D opening, I might have exercised the option to pass that, also. Declaring 2D would also have been a unique contract.

New system

OK, it's official. Agent 99 and I played a session using the new system.
1S= 5+cards, 1NT response forcing with Bart, 1S-2H GF
1D, 1H= 4+cards, 1NT response not forcing
1C= 3+cards
1NT= 12-14
2C= strong, 23+ balanced or within about a trick of game unbalanced
2D= 20-22 balanced
2H, 2S= Acol 2, 8 playing tricks in a one- or two-suited hand
2NT= both minors 5+5+cards, 5-10hcp

Wouldn't you know it, the cards ran heavily the other way, and not one interesting opening bid came up (not even 1NT, which is only slightly interesting).

5-cards or 4-cards? Yes

I had an idea last weekend that is a bit weird. I have a feeling it's either terrifically good or terrifically stupid, and after several days of chewing it over, I can't make up my mind which.

The thing is, basically I like bidding 4-card majors. With a weak no-trump, simple bidding becomes very natural, and if you want to add gadgets to cover specific weaknesses, you can see where you gain and where you lose. Except, opening 1S isn't so clever. The only response you have at the one level is 1NT, so that, perforce, becomes what you say any time you aren't strong enough to answer at the two level. Sensible auctions when Responder is weakish are unlikely to happen. By contrast, if you play 5-card majors with 1NT forcing (and Bart, maybe), you can have a relatively well-defined sequence to a somewhat sensible part-score at the two level, or maybe three level. On the downside, your minor suit bidding becomes quite compromised, with 1C often being 3 cards, and even 1D not immune.

But then I thought, why not play 1S as 5 cards, with 1NT forcing, but keep 1H as 4 cards, with 1NT not forcing? 1C does get compromised a little, but it will only be 3 cards when you are specifically 4=3=3=3 with 15+hcp. That's a lot better than Standard American.

So I looked at the ACBL convention card, and there's no way to express this arrangement. But I don't see how they can object to it, either: it's all known components that are legal, just put together in an unusual way.

Which doesn't answer my original question. Is this idea nifty or nuts?

Mexican 2D

I have been wrestling with the question of which toys to play at the two level with Agent 99. I know these are less fundamental choices than some of the other decisions I'm putting off, but at least this seems to be an area I can address relatively sensibly. It's not a completely clear choice, however, because there are lots of possibilities. I've settled on the Mexican 2D, Dutch 2H/2S, and having 2NT as weak with both minors. That sounds a little eclectic, and I suppose it is for American club bridge. But these are all well-known devices that are used by many, many pairs around the world. The biggest concern is then whether they are all legal via the ACBL's General Convention Chart, and wouldn't you know it, there's a problem.

For some reason, Dutch 2H and 2S are Mid-Chart conventions. Why? The typical defence against them is the same as what you would use against a Standard weak two-bid, so you can hardly argue that the poor innocent club player wouldn't know how to play against them. Once again, I can't fathom the “logic” the ACBL uses to decide these things. The likeliest explanation really does appear to be “not invented here”.

So 2H and 2S are still up in the air. But I'm settled on the other two.

The Mexican 2D bid shows a big balanced hand. We're going to use it to replace the Standard 2NT opening. How is it better? Well, there are a couple of extra responses available, and more than one scheme to make use of them. What I decided, after much cogitation, was that the best plan was to implement a version of four-suit transfers. In essence, we use the responses we've taken up for 1NT, so the learning curve should be very short.

2D – 20-22 hcp balanced, what we would currently open 2NT.

2D – pass; very weak with 5+ diamonds

2D – 2H; a relay. Opener rebids 2NT, and we carry on more or less as if he had opened 2NT in Standard or Acol: 2D – 2H; 2NT - ?
3C Stayman
3D transfer to hearts
3H transfer to spades
3S Minor Suit Stayman or Baron (depending on your historical perspective), generally 12+hcp balanced. Opener bids 3NT holding a minimum (20hcp), or bids a 4-card minor or a 5-card major, or 4NT when lacking any of the above. Played this way, this bid can replace the 4NT and 5NT quantitative raises.
3NT to play
4C Gerber
4D transfer to hearts
4H transfer to spades
6NT and higher bids to play

The payoff comes with the extra sequences:

2D – 2S; transfer to clubs (6+cards) with acceptance, may be a bust
2D – 2NT; transfer to diamonds (6+cards) with acceptance
2D – 3C; Responder is 5-4-3-1 or 5-5-3-0 with both minors (GF)
2D – 3D; Responder is 5-5-2-1 or 6-5-2-0 or 6-5-1-1 with both minors (GF)
2D – 3H/3S Responder is 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0 and bidding the shortage, with exactly 4 cards in the other major (GF)

These responses are the same as Elwood and I defined for our 1NT opening, except in this context they will mostly be game-forcing.

I think this responding scheme should generally be effective. If you look at it, you get a wealth of specialized bids for minor suit slam hands. Responder can close out the auction at 2D or 2NT or the three-level in any suit if very weak, or develop a good single- or two-suited hand fairly naturally even when the long suit is a minor. One big weakness is that the relay will wrong-side a heart contract. But a huge plus is that the given responding sequences should nearly all be somewhat familiar. In the context of my partnership with Agent 99, memory strain is a big concern.

1D - 2C

Reviewing Shep's 2/1 at www.bridgementor.com, I see that the opening sequence 1D – 2C is not treated as a game-force. That strikes me as probably a good idea, since the 2/1 GF structure works best with the major suit openings and the forcing 1NT response. When I play with Elwood, 1D – 2C is a game force, and as a consequence 1D – 3C has to be invitational, showing a 6-card suit, and non-forcing. That is playable, but it introduces an asymmetry into the treatment of 1C and 1D openings that I find aesthetically dissatisfying. If 1D – 2C is not a game force, the asymmetry can disappear.

The notes on Shep's 2/1 continue that the 2C response denies a 4-card major. That sort of approach just doesn't sit well with me, even though it has a long 2/1 pedigree. Known as Walsh, it has been a part of “West Coast Scientific” for thirty years or more. Walsh bidders will bypass a 4-, 5-, or even 6-card minor to bid a 4-card major suit. Commonly seen at the one level after a 1C opening, you can also apply the same general idea over 1D, choosing to bid 1H or 1S even when holding a longer club suit. But I don't like it. My preference would be to respond to 1C and 1D as I would in old-fashioned Standard American. Basically, when I am not strong enough to respond at the two level, and may even be making only one bid, I will choose to mention a 4-card major while I can. But if my hand is strong enough to respond at the two level, it is also strong enough to bid twice, and I can afford to bid naturally, long suit first and shorter suit second. I dislike distorting the picture I paint of my distribution when I don't really need to.

Perhaps the answer is that I tend to think within a weak no-trump frame of reference. Consider the sequence 1D – 2C; 2NT - ? If you play 1NT as 15-17, then Opener's minimum NT rebid has to be 12-14 balanced. If the 2C response could be as weak as 10-11 hcp, it is now somewhat dangerous for Responder to go fishing for 4-card majors. It would be very easy (almost inevitable) for you to find yourself in a lot of games with sub-minimum total values when both Opener and Responder are at or near their allowed minimums. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to get your major suit investigations started immediately, so that Responder can comfortably pass that 2NT rebid. And it could be argued that the “natural” approach I prefer is unsound when you play a strong no-trump, unless you play that 1D – 2C is a game force, and Opener can rebid a major suit without it being a reverse (just bidding out shape).

But consider the same story when an opening 1NT shows 12-14 hcp. Now that minimum NT rebid by Opener after 1C or 1D shows at least 15 hcp. So the sequence 1D – 2C; 2NT has become a game force by simple arithmetic – there are at least 25 or so hcp between the two hands. Now Responder doesn't worry about bidding a new suit at the three level, because he knows that the partnership will not be out of its depth in 3NT. My comment slipped in earlier that “if my hand is strong enough to respond at the two level, it is also strong enough to bid twice” is true when you play a weak no-trump, but not necessarily if you play strong.

I enjoy thinking about bidding sequences in this way, and quite often surprise myself when I work through something and discover an underlying connection that isn't readily apparent. I mean, without having thought about sequences carefully, if you read about Walsh, did it occur to you that its utility is connected to the strength of your 1NT opening? I was startled when I suddenly saw it.

The "new" system

Assuming that Agent 99 and I are going to switch to some version of 2/1 Game Forcing, there's something to be said for trying to get her to play what Elwood and I play. It would make my life easier, no doubt, but that wasn't what I meant. It's just that Elwood is a 2/1 afficionado, and so anything he agreed to play with me is probably somewhat sound. On the other hand, that isn't necessarily at all the best answer. Their personalities are quite different, and Elwood has a much higher tolerance for memory strain. (Agent 99 is willing to try, but she actually has a social life away from the bridge table, which proves to be a very distracting factor.) Add to that the Flint-Pender stuff we used to play, and there's some scope for creativity here.

Now, when I say creativity, I usually mean ripping off good ideas from better players. So I was browsing around, and I found www.bridgementor.com, and the system notes for Shep's 2/1. I'm not thinking to steal the whole thing (Shep doesn't play a weak notrump, for starters), but there are one or two things that are interesting. Using jump-shift responses as 4-card raises in the majors could be a good idea. Making 1D-2C a non-GF 2/1 may be better than "pure" 2/1.

Just to mention, I was enchanted to notice that the system includes criss-cross raises of the minors (1D - 3C and 1C - 2D) to provide a two-tier breakdown of the weak raise to 3minor. I invented that for myself and Agent 99 some time ago, and I've never noticed anyone else mention the idea.

On-line bridge

The best thing to happen in the world of bridge in recent years is the advent of BBO - BridgeBase Online. This website, masterminded by Fred Gitelman, allows thousands of bridge players all over the world to find a game any time, for free. It has other features, including the terrific Vugraph, which lets you watch as world-class players bid and play hands (with expert commentary to let you know what's going on). If you've never visited (www.bridgebase.com), you're missing out.

Yet I don't particularly like online bridge. It really isn't the same game, to me. I'm not a world-class player; I've never played with screens in use, or more than a couple of kibitzers watching for my mistakes. Perhaps the perspective is different if you do fall into that category, or perhaps not. But for me, the whole atmosphere of being in a room full of bridge players, of having the cards in your hand and feeling the physical presence of the opponents to be overcome, is part of the game. Without that atmosphere, it just isn't the same experience.

And then there's the people you meet. Meet in the internet sense, of course, meaning you don't meet them at all. Some are chatty, some taciturn, and I myself might go either way depending on (to some extent) how much alcohol has flowed my way. But often enough, you don't know for sure whether you are sitting down with an octogenarian life master or a twelve year-old intermediate (or vice versa, etc). The thing about bridge is, after a few hands, you can get a surprisingly clear feel for the character of your partner. Sometimes it might take a few hours to figure someone out, but sometimes the story becomes clear in a matter of minutes. Unfortunately, it tends to be the better people who are harder to figure out, and the idiots who are rapidly unmasked. I say unfortunately, because often enough you play for an hour or two and then never see that player again. But the ones who are sympatico enough for an hour or two are the ones that you really want to stick with.

And there's the question of rudeness. Some people (I'm tempted to assume they're kids, but there's no real justification for that assumption) feel that it's OK to be a complete asshole in an on-line forum, when they probably wouldn't dare to behave that way in real life.

A good thing you can say about BBO is that at least there is a facility to mark other players as "friends" or "enemies". If I come across a reasonable player, I mark them as friends, and if someone is too terrible either as a player or a person, I flag them as an enemy. This evening I played a few hands with gm1776, whoever that is. He's a chronic overbidder, and when I pulled a penalty double of his, he suggested I didn't know what I was doing and left the table. A review of the hand (if he could have been bothered) would reveal 3D doubled likely to be made with overtricks. But I guess it's the principle of the thing - he doubled, so I should sit for a terrible score whether I know better or not. Well, at least I won't be playing with him again, unless he changes his name (a sickening thought).

Responding to 1NT

One change that Agent 99 and I will implement is to use the scheme that Elwood and I have devised for responding to 1NT. It is based on 4-suit transfers, which is arguably not the best responding scheme for a weak no-trump, but it is a framework which is commonly in use locally. Elwood and I took some amusement out of elaborating some sequences and inventing a bid or two. The overall layout is like this.

2C is Stayman but does not necessarily promise a 4-card major. After 1NT – 2C; 2D, Responder’s bid of 2H is weak, and usually shows 5-5, or 5-4 either way in the Majors, but if very weak does not promise more than four cards in each Major. Opener should correct to 2S with a doubleton heart (Crawling Stayman) and also more often than not with 3-3 in the Majors, so the stronger hand declares.

After 1NT – 2C; 2D – 4D/4H are delayed Texas transfers, implying Responder is 6-4.

1N – 2C; 2D – 2S; shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, invitational.
1N – 2C; 2D – 3H; shows 5 hearts and 4 spades, game-forcing
1N – 2C; 2D – 3S; shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, game-forcing
1N – 2C; 2D – 3D; shows 5-5 majors (Weissberger), either invitational or slam-interested. With 3-3 in the majors and non-minimum (accepting an invitation), Opener bids 4C, and Responder transfers to his preferred major.
1NT-2C; 2D-3C, 1NT-2C; 2D-P, or 1NT-2C; 2M-3m indicates a weak sign-off, 6+ in the minor and 4 in one Major. 1NT-2C; 2H-3m; 3S is a special sign-off correction where Opener is 4-4 in the Majors, possibly with only 2 in Responder’s minor.

We play four-suit transfers, 2S transferring to clubs and 2NT transferring to diamonds, with acceptance (bid them if you like them). With a weak minor two-suiter, responder can answer 2NT and pass opener’s rebid. Responder’s follow-up of his m-suit transfer with 3M on the next round shows a game-forcing hand, 4 in the M and 6+ in the m, regardless of whether or not Opener “accepts” the transfer.

After a Jacoby Major suit transfer simple acceptance, a single jump in an unbid suit by Responder is an autosplinter, showing a 6+ self-sufficient Major, a singleton or void in the splinter suit, and slam interest. Examples: 1NT-2D; 2H-3S, 1NT-2H; 2S-4C (not Gerber). The sole exception to this is noted below.

1N – 2D; 2H – 2S; shows 5 hearts and 4 spades, invitational.
1N – 2H; 2S – 4H; shows 5-5 majors, no slam interest. The non-jump sequence 1N – 2H; 2S - 3H; is the auto-splinter with heart shortage.

All 3-level responses show both minors and are either strongly game-invitational or slam-interested. In principle, when Responder is confident of game values, he should most of the time just bid it. The use of these minor-suit oriented bids implies that he is seriously worried that 3NT is likely to fail because of a weak suit, or that he is considering 6m should Opener have a suitable hand.

1N – 3C; shows 5-4-3-1 or 5-5-3-0 with both minors. Then 3D asks, and 3M is the singleton (or void), when 4OM by Opener is to play in the 4-3 fit. 4m from Opener is now a preference and is not forcing and not Minorwood, although Responder will often be in a position to raise or cue-bid.

1N – 3D; shows 5-5-2-1, 6-5-2-0 or 6-5-1-1 with both minors. Then 3H asks, when:
3S shows 2=1=5=5, 1=1=5-6 or 2=0=5-6 without slam interest
3NT shows 1=2=5=5 or 0=2=5-6 without slam interest
4C shows 2=1=5=5 with slam interest
4D shows 1=2=5=5 with slam interest
4H shows 6-5-2-0 with slam interest
4S shows 6-5-1-1 with slam interest

1N – 3M; is a splinter bid, with 4-4-4-1, 5-4-4-0, or 5-4-3-1 distribution and exactly four cards in the other major. Now 4OM by Opener is to play, 4m from Opener is a preference and is not forcing and not Minorwood, although Responder will often be in a position to raise or cue-bid.

3NT is natural, 13-18 balanced.

4C is Gerber.

4D, 4H are Texas transfers.

4S is unused.

4NT is natural, invitational to 6NT. If Opener decides to accept, he may show aces as per Blackwood, and if Responder then bids 5NT Opener must pass. Or Opener may jump to 6minor to show a 5-card suit, offering a choice of slams.

5NT is forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT.

6NT and 7NT are natural.

Odds & Ends

I am still not playing very often, not frequently enough to keep my game up to snuff, truthfully. But I have managed to get a few games with Agent 99, and occasionally I play to complete a table when I'm working. If you're not playing well, it seems to make it harder to identify interesting hands to write about. But here are a couple of slams.

The first hand was a bidding disaster.



Agent 99 chose to open the West hand 1D and rebid 3D over my 1H response. I envisaged a slightly higher point-count opposite, and the result was I pushed all the way to 7NT, which had no play. Perhaps a Gambling 3NT would be best, and if I insist on getting carried away, I might choose 7D. That isn't really a great contract, but a ruffing finesse brings in the whole heart suit, so at least there is a line to make it.

The next hand was better.



I was playing with one of the many Barbaras of the Manhattan to make up the movement in the 299er game I was directing. This particular Barbara isn't a life master, and preferred if I went and did director stuff while I was the dummy, as otherwise I made her nervous. So I was impressed with the sequence we put together. When I asked for kings, her nerve finally broke, which is why she bid 6NT, but I wanted to play in a suit anyway. The same boards were in play in both the open game and the 299er, and we were the only pair in either game to bid a grand, and only three pairs bid even a small slam. Kudos to Barbara for a couple of useful cue-bids.

The Acol Experiment is coming to an end, at some point in the near future. I enjoy playing with Agent 99, and I think it's time we moved on to (or back to) a more precise system. I'd really like if I could persuade her to play Tangerine Club, but I don't think I'm in with a chance of making that fly. On the other hand, if I can get her drunk or something, maybe a session with the Phantom Club will warm her up...

One convention that both Agent 99 and I still like is Lionel. We haven't yet managed a penalty double of a strong no-trump, but we've given most of the other bids a run, and we almost always get a decent result. I think that one's a keeper, whatever else we play.

Gold Cup

In a previous post, I said that my "hometown" team had a tough match coming up. I wish I could have watched - the result has been posted on Bridge Great Britain. My guys won by the magnificent margin of 1 IMP. Hearty congratulations to the Nick Stevens team.

Misadventures In Manhattan

A very frustrating session with Agent 99 saw us barely making 50%, but with the feeling that we had made only one or two serious errors. Generally, in a 24-board session, you expect to give up two bottoms through stupidity, and get two tops from the opponents in return. That evens out, so then your final score depends on what you do with the other twenty hands. We felt like we hadn't given away more than the expected two bottoms, but in return, we got more bottoms instead of the compensating tops.

There were at least a couple of hands where we got a bad score because the opponents bid and made a game that couldn't be beaten – but most of the field wasn't getting there. And then there was this sort of thing.



This auction seems fairly ordinary and innocuous. The final contract certainly can't be beaten, and according to the computer analysis it makes ten tricks against best defence. We can make two hearts, but we can't make three, so at the vulnerability there's nowhere for us to go. Why am I whining? Because -130 scored exactly zero matchpoints, that's why. Three other pairs played in clubs, and they all took only nine tricks. Three pairs played in 1NT, which should not make, but they all did, one even made eight tricks. And the final table was allowed to make a heart contract our way. So the “par” result gets absolutely nothing.

This was obviously a tough field, though.



It's almost axiomatic that on any given slam hand, at least one pair will manage to stay in a part-score, and at least a couple more don't get past game. On this hand, everyone was in a slam. A couple of pairs bid 6NT, which would go down on a spade lead, but they both made. One of the pairs in 6D made all thirteen tricks, which is impossible. And so bidding and just making 6D, which is the par result, scored just 2 out of 7.

Misadventures In Manhattan

I usually find myself directing what we call 299er games, which means, basically, games for non-life masters. These can be, at times, frustrating, but often they are easy on the director because you don't get many difficult calls. And occasionally, things get hilarious.



The auction needs more than a little explanation, and can't be rendered by the handviewer software. With West the dealer, it began 1D – P – 1S – 1D, at which point I was called. (As can be seen, West seems to have had a heart mixed in with her diamonds, or else she would have opened 1H, but that set the scene for the ensuing debacle). I ruled that since making the bid sufficient to 2D would be a cue-bid of the dealer and therefore artificial, South was free to bid what he wanted but North was barred from the auction. South thought about this for a while, and decided to pass. West then bid 1H, and North shotgunned out his forced Pass. “Wait a minute”, says South. “That was insufficient too”. “So it was”, I agreed, but ruled that North had accepted the bid by passing. Now East bid 2C, and I was wondering if that was 4th suit forcing. West didn't alert, so perhaps it wasn't, but West did rapidly jump to 3NT, so it seems like she was expecting a better dummy than she actually got. I don't know if my rulings were correct or not, but I think justice was served when N-S got a near top because E-W are way too high.

I played with Agent 99 the other evening. We did scratch, at 53% or so, but the lack of practice was showing. I was especially disappointed with our last two boards.



I was disgusted with myself at the end of the hand. I should have realized that the singleton king was likely, and making 5H would have been a shared top. One down was below average, with some matchpoints salvaged because people were going down in 4H. And then came



Three rounds of hearts promoted the CQ for down one and a fat zero. I don't see how we are supposed to bid our cold game, but not many people got there. If Agent 99 should chance a double of 3H, we are pretty much guaranteed a reasonable score. Even one down on mediocre defence would be a solid average.

At least we did better than some. One North-South pair posted the smallest score I've ever seen – 18.97%. Amazing.

Gold Cup

I mentioned in a previous post that I'm cheering (long distance) for the Nick Stevens team. Well, the results of round 4 are in and the draw for round 5 is out. Nick and his crew won quite handily in round 4, but to get to the quarter-finals, they have a serious hurdle to jump. In round 5 they face the team captained by Patrick Collins (Derek Patterson, Gerald Tredinnick, Stuart Tredinnick). These are the number 2 seeds, and have actually won the Gold Cup previously, and they have been the losing finalists the last two years. So not an easy match ahead, but I know my guys can win if they play up on the day. I think Collins ought to just give it up, to save themselves the agony.

Grand Slam

I hadn't played for two and a half months, but I broke the drought last night at the Manhattan. It's STAC week again, so I played with Agent 99 to see if we could collect some silver. We overbid like crazy, which seemed to be a winning strategy as we finished up with over 64%, which was good for second place East-West. We only had one real bottom, but there were a few boards distinctly below average. One in particular is driving me crazy.



I played in 6S, claiming all 13 tricks when the opening club lead wasn't ruffed. That was a poor score, 2.5 out of 11 matchpoints, as a number of people found a grand slam or 6NT. I want to bid this to 7S, but I have been struggling to find a convincing sequence when we start 1H – 1S; 1NT (15-16 hcp). Even if we were playing strong jump-shifts and started 1H – 2S; 3S I'm having trouble getting to where I can count thirteen tricks with any degree of certitude. Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious because we're out of practice, or perhaps I'm expecting too much exactitude. But I do like to be pretty sure for grand slams. I'll punt small slams with the best of them, but not grands.

GNT Flight B

Well, Elwood and I have formally withdrawn from the team to represent NYC in New Orleans. It's a bit sad, all things considered, but we had no choice. My wife has been (and still is) very ill, and Elwood has his own domestic troubles of a different sort. I haven't even been playing bridge for the past couple of months, except for a little time on BBO (and I really don't like online "bridge"). Elwood commented that this year was his fourth attempt to win the thing, and now he finally has the chance, he can't go. C'est la vie, but it still sucks at least a little.

I hope the Feuers get the chance to go with another pair of teammates. They played very well, and really deserve to go.

Maastricht Challenge

I'm currently working my way through Maastricht Challenge, by Tim Bourke, which consists of 60 single-dummy declarer play problems.

Tim Bourke is amazing. You find hands he has composed or identified all over the place (I see him credited regularly in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin magazine), and they usually don't involve anything exotic for their solution. But at the same time, they aren't easy, and they are usually instructive.

Maastricht Challenge is no different. Almost every hand has me a bit baffled, at least at first glance. And almost every hand looks so obvious once you see his explanation. That's a great achievement for an author: not many manage it. You need to get the problems difficult enough to not get solved at a glance, but easy enough that you are not talking over the head of your potential audience, and you have to explain the solution clearly. Hugh Kelsey, for example, wrote very clearly, but his problems were usually very difficult. Tim Bourke's hands are generally accessible to more players, which makes finding that balance more difficult, in my opinion.

He says in the introduction to the book:
“Many of the problems use this “Likely Count” logic in the recommended solution. In order to feel comfortable with this concept as well as the variety of themes in the problems, I strongly recommend reading and re-reading this book until you know the problems by sight. I have used this approach on all the quiz books I own and have found that the technical reach of my game is the better for this.”
I hadn't thought about it, but this is exactly what I've done with the quiz books I own. And I think Bourke's right – my game is better for having done that. So Maastricht Challenge is going to get the same treatment.

Gold Cup

Just a quick note to keep the blog alive. The 2010 Gold Cup is in mid-stream in England. This is the premier teams contest in the UK, and I carry some fond memories of it from my early years of bridge. This year I'm trying to keep an eye on the Nick Stevens team (Nick Stevens, Paul Bowyer,
Jim Mason, Duncan Happer, Gary Watson, David Jones). Gary Watson and I went to the same grammar school, and taught ourselves bridge there, and were partners for our first few years of duplicate play. When we eventually parted ways (more a case of growing apart, rather than a sudden divorce), Gary formed a partnership with David Jones. I don't know how often they play together, but that means their partnership has been extant, at least off and on, for more than thirty years. I find that slightly amazing, and somewhat admirable. Gary was a great talent, very quick when it came to calculations at the card table, and when combined with his extrovert personality and good sense of humor, that made for some interesting bidding. Probably the ensuing thirty-odd years of experience have calmed him down a bit, but I haven't seen him in all that time, so I'm hoping that the team makes it well into the final weekend and I can watch him on BBO.

Nick Stevens actually went to the same school, a year below us. He didn't play in our card school, though. He learned from his parents, at home and in the clubhouse at the golf course. But the three of us became friends at Hinckley bridge club (the local club, frequented by Nick's parents and several teachers from the school, who were all complicit in making us both more frequent and better players). I have a feeling that Nick first played with Paul Bowyer back at that time too, so that would be another very long-standing partnership.

The team is the 14th seed. I think they are actually capable of winning the event, and I'll be rooting for them (from a distance). For now, I'm just watching for results on BGB
(http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/goldcup/default.htm).

Pro-Am-Am-Am

Yesterday was the Manhattan Bridge Club Pro-Am-Am-Am. This is a bracketed Swiss teams event, where the teams are composed of 1 "Pro" (defined to be a Life Master) and 3 "Ams" (defined to be non-Life Masters). You play three matches, and the Pro has to play one match partnering each Am. This year, the event was sold out at 34 teams, that got split into four brackets based on the total masterpoints of the Ams. I got approached by a decent pair that I see regularly in the 299er pairs games that I direct, so I roped in Agent 99 as a ringer for the fourth seat. (She's not a LM yet, but she's distinctly better than your average Am). At least two of them have well over 200 masterpoints, so we found ourselves in the top bracket.

Unfortunately, one Pro had managed to find two ringers - he said to me that he was the only Pro that had two Ams better than he was (and he's not bad). So that team won. But I tried to arrange for our weakest line-up to play the first match, and our strongest line-up to play third. According to plan, we narrowly lost our first match, and then won the next two by increasing margins without meeting the strongest teams. As a result, we climbed up to second place. A triumph of strategy, if not of bridge, lol.

The key feature throughout seemed to me to be missed games. We only encountered a couple of slam hands, and nobody bid them. But each match featured a couple of hands where one pair or another failed to bid a making game. If there was a trend, it was that openings or low-level intervention by the opponents was often enough to throw off the hand evaluation of the Ams.

Anyway, that was a fun interlude in what has been (and continues to be) a fairly miserable stretch of life events. Hopefully, more bridge lies in my future.

Bridgevaria

I feel I should give a shout-out to Bridgevaria.com, an on-line magazine about bridge. When you're looking for something to read or puzzle over, it's worth a look.

brief hiatus

My non-bridge life has gone crazy just at the moment. Playing bridge seems unlikely for a week or two, never mind posting to this blog. Hopefully, things will calm down in that sort of time-frame, and I can get back into the swing of things before May.

Grand National Teams

We finally got around to playing the final of the GNT Flight B for our district today. Twenty six boards at IMPs for about 7 gold points and to decide who would qualify to go to New Orleans to represent NYC.

We weren't too intimidated by the opposition, but on the other hand, we didn't expect an easy ride either. Elwood and I sat down against a pair that we felt fairly confident against, while the Feuers tackled what I would consider the opposition's best pair. Having said that, it's fair to add that we got lucky in the first quarter. The very first hand we picked up was a brute.

I showed 5+5+ in the minors, and Elwood chose 5C, making 6. We were not happy with this as a start. When I put the dummy down, I commented that I had no idea whether we should be in 5, 6 or 7, and that was basically true. A few boards later, I picked up something like

Elwood again was shaking his head when he saw the dummy, but on this hand, a 4-1 spade break limited him to 11 tricks. He commented that if I made any sort of encouraging noise (I should really cue-bid 4H, for one thing) he would land in 6S. That said, we could expect a swing in our favor because of the bad break.
We did indeed gain 13 on that hand, and in fact we gained 10 on the first one, also. While agonizing over missing 6C, we had failed to notice that a 4-1 diamond break allowed 6C to be beaten by AD and a ruff. The Feuers didn't miss their chance, and our opponents should feel aggrieved that two good slams cost them 23 IMPs. I was pleased that Elwood and I stayed focussed after these shenanigans, and we earned a couple of game swings in the second quarter. When we scored up at half time, we were ahead 48-12.
The opponents switched partnerships around for the 2nd half (they were a team of 6 anyway, but also broke up the pair who stayed in when they brought in players 5 and 6). That didn't worry us, and Elwood and I stayed buckled down and didn't give anything away. Meanwhile, their other pair decided to press against the Feuers, which turned out to be a losing strategy. We won the second half 49-8, for a 97-20 total. Very satisfying.

The Acol Experiment

The Experiment proceeds. We've played three or four sessions so far, announcing to our bemused opponents that we're playing 4-card majors and a weak no-trump. There's no requirement to pre-alert them, of course, but we do, because the majority of them hardly ever meet anything except some variation of Standard American.

Our results so far haven't been earth-shattering, but they haven't been bad either. (When all's said and done, the quality of your defence probably has a bigger impact on your results than the quality of your bidding). But that's not the point of the exercise. Agent 99 is getting more comfortable with the feeling that most bids are natural, and her approach to a session is definitely more relaxed. We used to spend fifteen or twenty minutes before each game with her going through a little stack of index cards: her crib notes on various bidding sequences and conventions. Now we spend about two minutes talking about lebensohl (that's one zombie of a convention, you can't talk it to death), and that's about it.

So far I've noticed a couple of poor results from using the natural 2NT and 3NT responses to 1 major in a somewhat undisciplined fashion. We've agreed that they should show less than 3-card support, so that should eliminate the issue of missed 5-3 trump fits. The light opening style has caused problems for the opponents a few times, and the willingness to just jump to a reasonable-sounding final contract has engineered a swing or two. I'd say that, on balance, we're at least breaking even on how effectively we're bidding.

So far, so good.

Silver Points

Another STAC week has come and gone. Say what you like about masterpoints being meaningless and silly, but if you offer silver points, you meet players you haven't seen for months. The Manhattan (and the other clubs, I'm sure) was jumping this past week. The hands come from the ACBL, and their computer seems to deal even crazier stuff than our computer.

Here are a couple of judgement calls.



Do you say anything? I think I'm passing at any form of scoring. Ralph decided to risk a double. The good news was that both the ace and king of hearts stood up. The bad news was that those were the only two tricks for the defence.




How about here? Partner tries to calculate his pre-empts, but at this vulnerability he'll be aiming for 3 or 4 down. You have some good stuff for spades – nice trumps, good controls. You have potential for tricks in the round suits if partner can help, and whatever you're missing is probably on your right and finessable. But that argues for defence, also, as does the vulnerability. Actually, the only really wrong answer is pass. But if you double, there's some chance of screwing up and only beating the contract one trick (although it's down three double-dummy). If you bid 5S, North will double, expecting his partner to have a good hand (not unreasonably), and partner will wrap up eleven tricks without any difficulty.



When's the last time you had 8-card support? I was sitting waiting for Ralph to open 2H or 3C or something equally useless, and he went and opened 1D. Now what?
I gave up on science and just bid 5D. That was just right, looking at our two hands. Ralph's diamond suit was three small, of course, so the two missing were the ace and queen. We got a 2-0 break – offside, alongside another ace. Down 1.



Playing quietly in 2S making nine tricks was worth 10 out of 11 matchpoints. A number of people played in 3NT, going down, and we out-scored those in clubs. I count this one as a victory for the weak no-trump.



This slam was the opposition's way, and the hand managed to trip up most of them. Only three pairs reached a slam, two making 7S while one pair managed 6NT+1. Everybody else languished in game, with a grand slam available in three denominations. At our table (and probably at others also) the auction started P - 1S - 2NT (Unusual), which I guess makes things more difficult. But for three-quarters of the field to not even reach a small slam seems poor to me.

When is blogging season?

I am at a loose end this evening because my partner cancelled a play-date because of the weather. It's snowing. It's winter! Well, I suppose I can't blame him. But when I turn to the internet for entertainment, what do I find? My favorite blogs all seem to have gone dormant, for months now.

Paul at The Beer Card still posts, but almost all my other favorites seem to have gone on sabbatical. I need some input - preferably from players who are better than me! Come on, you stars, talk to the internet. Your public awaits.

Grand National Teams

I'm just back from playing in the GNT (busy weekend!). Last year, I played with Elwood and our usual Regional team, and we crashed out early. This year, our teammates weren't available, so Elwood and I teamed up with the Feuer brothers. They don't go in for fancy bidding, but they aren't bad, and we felt that we made a reasonable foursome.

There were 8 teams in Flight B, apparently, so today was the quarter-final and semi-final. We started out with an easy match against a team that probably should have been in Flight C. It was supposed to be 28 boards, but the director pulled a board from us in each half because of slow play. (It wasn't all our fault, one of the opponents at our table was even slower than Elwood). But even so, we racked up +87 IMPs in the first half and added another good chunk in the second half. So, on to the semi-final. The second match was scheduled for 26 boards, and we knew that our opponents were not push-overs. But we also figured to be in with good chances to win.

In the first half, Elwood and I felt rather unhappy with our performance, figuring that we were responsible for at least a couple of swings against without really bringing anything in. But the Feuers returned a great scorecard, flattening a lot of dangerous-looking boards and giving nothing away. On one hand, I held:
KT9x
xx
Axxxx
xx
and Elwood dealt and opened 1H. I bid 1S, and he jumped to 3D (of all things). Now what? I decided that there wasn't likely to be much play for slam, even if he had 19-20 points, so I jumped to 5D. Of course, things broke etc, and Elwood made all 13 tricks. He was a little upset, feeling that I should have bid 4D (which would have been Minorwood), because 6D was actually not a bad contract. +640 didn't look too good, but the Feuers came back with +200 from beating 3NT, so our bad board actually was +13 IMPs. We were ahead 42-19 at the halfway mark.

The second half was also not that great from us, and this time the Feuers couldn't make up for it. When the smoke cleared, we had lost the second half 16-39. And when you add it up, that means that after 26 boards, we had fought each other to a standstill, 58-58. The remedy was a 6-board playoff. I promised to bear down a bit more.

The first playoff board was something like:

2C was game-forcing. 3H was a probe for 3NT, but 3S suggested something better. 4C was minorwood, 4S showed 2 keycards without the CQ, and 5S was the SK. We probably both pushed a little, but I liked my controls, and Elwood was determined to win the playoff. He played the hand nicely, ruffing two hearts in dummy and choosing the right path back to hand to finish drawing trumps and concede trick 13. The opponents settled for 3NT, and that was enough to win, although there were a couple of other swings and we actually won the playoff 24-0.

So, one more match to see if we represent NYC in New Orleans (Flight B).

Pro-Am

I'm just back from playing in the Victor Mitchell Pro-Am. The "Pros" are Life Masters, so I was eligible to get press-ganged this time. And the "Ams" have less than 50 master points, so they mostly have not been playing very long at all.
It was kind of cute. My partner was companionable enough, and seemed to enjoy himself. I found myself in four or five impossible contracts and managed to make them all, while my partner only went down a couple of times when he should have made. So I was thinking we had a fair game, but when the scores came out, we were listed at 48% or so. I guess there was some really funny stuff going on at other tables.
Still, a pleasant evening.

The Acol Experiment

I was half-heartedly watching BBO Vugraph the other day when an acid explosion from a commentator caught my eye. He had made a dismissive (and I thought, quite unjustifiably so) remark about the bidding of a Belgian pair on a particular hand. One of his fellow commentators remarked that it was surprising to hear an Englishman condemn a sequence that would be fairly standard in Acol-land. His reply was (perhaps not quite verbatim, but close) “I may be English, but I hate Acol, and detest the weak no-trump, which I consider to be a device to trap British bidding in the Stone Age”.
I find it difficult to fathom where this intensity is coming from. I'm not the right person to advocate for Acol as a top-notch modern bidding system (I don't think it is). But if you learn and play basic Acol for a while, you will not only have fun, you will get some results, and you will learn some sensible bidding judgement and get a good attitude towards bidding. When you decide to upgrade your bidding after a while, you will have a fairly sound basis for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems and gadgets that present themselves. And the weak no-trump? Well, “why not?” is my question. Even if you are playing 4-card majors, a strong no-trump will force you into 3-card minor-suit (“prepared”) openings, and other indignities. The weak no-trump is a perfectly viable bid that has some distinct advantages as well as some attached dangers.
For example, if you have had Acol 2-bids available, “upgrading” to weak twos may be clearly seen as a trade-off that isn't all benefit and no cost (a 2C opening that isn't game-forcing and opening 1-bids that have an even wider range than before are serious detriments). Or, if you “upgrade” to 5-card majors and a strong no-trump a la Standard American, you can see all those 3-card openings surface, and know that minor-suit openings (and minor-suit bidding in general) is compromised, often quite severely. Or, having seen the difficulties presented by a natural system with wide-range opening 1-bids and 2C as the strong opening, you may better understand the concepts of a Strong Club system where the opening 1-bids are more limited and you have more room to handle strong hands.
Over the past year, I've met (and taught) quite a few beginners whose first (and only) exposure to bridge bidding has been a basic Standard American. Almost none of them understands the idea of a reverse, even after special classes where they spend an hour or two hearing about them and bidding and playing example hands. (I have met pairs who “don't play reverses”, as if it were a convention that they could add to their system or not, like New Minor Forcing.) They rarely think in terms of bidding sequences – it's all one-bid-at-a-time with lots of rules to memorize about what bid is the right next one. To be sure, you can blame a lot of this on the teaching methods, but on the other hand, a lot of it comes from the basic system they're being taught. You have to have a five-card suit to open a major. Why? From the beginner's point of view, it's quite arbitrary. So rule one, five-card major, check. And it goes on from there.
I'm more or less convinced that if we made these people play Acol with a weak no-trump for 6 months, where all the openings really are natural and the preference and reversing sequences are clear, they could go back to Standard American and actually have a much better understanding of how to bid in that system. In fact, I've become so sure of it that I've persuaded Agent 99 to participate in The Acol Experiment.
The only way to “put my money where my mouth is” would be to find a volunteer who knows how to bid Standard American somewhat half-assed, teach them Acol, and see if their SA bidding improves. Enter Agent 99. I think her bidding is better than half-assed, but it is still rather weak compared to her play of the cards. And the type of difficulty she has, the type of mistake she sometimes makes, is telling. My hypothesis is that throwing her into the world of Acol, where there are lots of guidelines and few rules, will be an antidote. It should provide a counter-balance, where the weight of memorization will be eased by understanding some under-lying principles.
So far we've played one Acol session, and as luck would have it, we were sitting East-West while the cards ran North-South. Next time, maybe.

Misadventures In Manhattan

There hasn't been much good to report in my bridge playing lately. I haven't been inspired to select good hands for blogging, either, so you'll have to put up with a bit of a mixture.



I chose to open 2C, which made Agent 99 hesitate a bit. I don't know how we managed to avoid 7NT – I'm sure that's my likely destination if I was in both seats. But I don't think she believed I had a real 2C opening. I suppose it is a bit thin, but unless you're playing Acol 2s, I don't see what else to do. Also, she ought to know you can't psyche a 2C opener (not that I've ever really psyched with her – maybe stretched the truth a bit here and there). Anyway, the end result was that we washed up in 6S. I was disgusted at this, since the grand looks obvious. Then North showed out on the second spade, and it was looking like genius. Then he had to follow suit as I cashed diamonds and shortened my trumps by ruffing a couple of hearts, and I was able to get 13 tricks anyway with a trump coup. But that was an OK score since nobody bid 7S, and 12 tricks is the limit in NT.



Agent 99 didn't like the prospect of 3NT with me having a known singleton and a spade lead marked for the defence. So she went ahead and bid game in the 4-3 fit. I'm not sure I would have done it myself, but actually it's a very sensible idea, and was rewarded with an above average score. Double-dummy, 3NT always makes 10 tricks also, but in practice, played by West, it's most likely only making 9 tricks.



The jump rebid by Agent 99 is perhaps a bit aggressive, but she has a good hand in support of hearts. If she doesn't bid that way, it's going to be distinctly more difficult to get to a fair slam. But I'm afraid I have to report that I played the hand like a real palooka, and went down with 12 tricks cold. After a spade lead, I ruffed a spade and played a heart to the jack. And then I don't want to talk about it any more. I seem to spend half my life telling beginners to count their tricks, and it's distinctly mortifying to fail to do the same when I'm declarer.



This one is from a Thursday evening game. These days, people stretch to answer a 1C opening on almost zero values. Ralph demonstrated that this isn't necessarily the best plan. Double-dummy, I should go down, while we can make 2H. In practice, I actually finished up with 8 tricks in clubs, and a near-top score. If the auction starts 1C – 1H, there is no way for N-S to stop in a makeable contract.

Serious partnerships

My last two or three sessions with Agent 99 haven't been stellar. What with one thing and another, it's been difficult to play together any more often than about once a week, and that's taken a toll, I think. I was reading a piece on the internet the other day (about a bidding system or treatment or something, I can't remember what, exactly). A comment the author made in passing rang a bell for me. He said something along the lines of "this is perhaps not for casual play, but for serious partnerships that play at least 100 times a year, it's worth it". My first reaction was "100 times a year? That's twice a week. And he doesn't count a partnership as serious unless you play at least that often... There aren't many serious partnerships around".
Now, maybe I was reading a bit more into that comment than the author intended. But I got to thinking back to periods where I was most successful. And the truth is, I was always playing with one regular partner almost exclusively, I was playing with my favorite partner at least twice a week, and we'd been playing together for at least six months. Whether or not that author intended to say it, I've decided I agree that if you want to be a "serious" partnership in terms of consistent results in serious competition, you need to invest heavily in the partnership in terms of time.
I don't think it's a function of what particular bidding system you use, or what types of competition you play in, or what level of opposition you face. I know Sartaj Hans (The Imp Chimp) was talking about “concept” vs “delivery” one while. It's been my experience that the only consistently effective way to improve delivery is repetition. You have to become familiar with and negotiate out how your partnership handles various situations. When you've coped with (or failed to cope with) enough different situations enough times, then you get a good grasp of what partner will expect/do in a new situation. And that means putting in practice time and playing time. I was hoping Sartaj, or someone, would come up with some other way to do it, but I don't think anyone has, really.
On the other hand, I don't know that my reaction was wrong, either. I see lots of players at the Manhattan that play two, three, four times or more each week. The club is open seven days a week, and there are some people who show up almost every day. But they play with multiple partners – very few are “serious” partnerships.

Anyway, I thought I would wrap this up with a couple of questions.

How serious are you about your bridge?

Do you have a partner that you are willing to invest the time in?

Do you think that you can be serious without putting the time in?

How is that working out for you?

Ethics? What are those?

Just a quick follow-up to the last post.

I was helping run a supervised play session the other day, when I saw the bidding at one table proceed 1C - Pass - 2C - Pass - Pass - Pass. The sweet little old lady who bid 2C had 5-card club support and 11 high-card points, so I asked why she didn't bid 3C. "I couldn't read my partner", she confessed. "I didn't think she had a good opening".

I managed not to scream too loud as I explained that you aren't allowed to bid based on your partner's facial expression.

Ethical considerations

Playing a session with Agent 99, there was a hand that infuriated me.



Looking at my hand, it is clearly not worth a raise to 4S, at first assessment. I was considering bidding 3D as a trial bid, when the double on my right changed my mind. If most of the missing cards are on my right, I figured that my minor suit honors had grown, and therefore I jumped to game.

Needless to say, this was not a success. In fact, I misplayed the hand because I expected more values on my right, and finished up going three down for a complete zero, when I should have escaped for one or two down for at least some matchpoints (most of the field actually reached 3S or 4S and went down). If the double had been up to strength, 4S would have been a much better contract, but I was misled in both the bidding and the play.

That was infuriating enough, but getting fixed by an idiot is a common enough occurrence that I should be able to get over it. However, a much more troubling aspect sprang to mind. East is sitting looking at 10 hcp and four trumps. West has made a take-out double potentially forcing her to bid at the three level, certainly showing (for almost anybody) something like opening bid values (or better). Why didn't she double 4S? Could it be that she knew her partner was inclined to bid on garbage? I think so, and I think not disclosing that understanding is an ethical violation. You can have your bids mean all sorts of things, but you are required to alert the opponents when the meaning is so far outside the norm.

Discussing this with the director after the game, he was inclined to agree, in principle. But his judgement was that they are both idiots and don't know what they are doing. Therefore, there wasn't really anything he could do. I can understand his point, and he's probably right. But at the same time, I'll be keeping an eye out for that pair in the future. They are just C players, but the doubler plays a lot, and is continually at the top of her section of the Ace Of Clubs race on the ACBL website. How much leeway does she get?

Slams

Playing with Agent 99, I find a lot of my blogging focus rests on slam hands. Our bidding style is usually pretty aggressive with strong hands, so we don't miss many. And often enough there's something interesting in the hand.

The first two hands came on consecutive boards against the same opponents. The first one pleased me greatly, because “proper” strip-squeezes are somewhat less common than mere simple squeezes.



The 2H bid showed 15-16 hcp with better hearts than spades, so the jump to 6NT indicated some confidence in my declarer play.

South led the S6, and I saw eleven tricks, counting one diamond. The twelfth could come from the spade finesse, or from an end-play (presumably after a strip-squeeze), or perhaps from a simple squeeze if the DA was taken immediately. I decided that the spade finesse was probably wrong, although after the explanation of the bidding, South had some indication that a spade lead might be good. So I took the SA, led a diamond to the DK, which held, and then unblocked the HQJ. Now the CK gave entry to finish the hearts, discarding diamonds in preparation for the strip-squeeze and the eventual throw-in of North to lead a spade. In accordance with my theory of the distribution, I next cashed the CQ, expecting the long clubs to be with South. However, South showed out. This left me a trick short, but on the other hand, made the spade finesse much more likely to win. So a spade to the JS and the KS completed the squeeze, and North was thrown in to lead a club. Not exactly the squeeze I'd been working on, but close enough.

The next hand was not so good.



The CQ was led, so I ruffed and led to the JD. My thinking was if the finesse won, I could ruff a club, cash the SA, and then play a heart. If the diamond finesse lost, a heart return would help me pick up the trumps, a club would let me ruff, a spade lets me finesse, and if it's a diamond, maybe they'll be 2-2.

No such luck. The diamond return was ruffed for down one (I guessed to drop the HQ). I still kind of like the line, but I don't really know what the best way to play the hand is. As the cards lie, nothing sensible works anyway.

A hand with voids came up in a different session.



We bid this very simply and directly, and I got a trump lead. I decided that ruffing spades seemed like the best plan, and that I needed thirteen tricks for a decent matchpoint score. So I won the CQ, and risked entering hand twice in hearts to ruff two spades low. Then two diamond ruffs provided the entries to ruff a third spade high and draw trumps – no problem.

We played the hand in the first round, and I figured that it was probably above average (slams usually are). Bidding 7C is difficult, with both players discouraged by a void in partner's first suit. But bidding 6C seemed so natural that I was sure others would get there. In fact only one other pair reached a slam – 6NT down 2. Is the hand really that tricky?

The next hand features a question of bidding theory.



With no particular agreement, Agent 99 and I were playing the old-fashioned style where a raise of the fourth suit is natural, indicating that opener has a three-suited hand. I therefore deduced that diamonds was the right strain, and that all her values would be working, so I simply jumped to the slam. This made in some comfort, eventually losing a trick to a failing club finesse.

When I play with Elwood, he favors a rebid structure where (after a 4th suit bid) Opener has a responsibility to show support if possible, or bid no-trumps if possible, or show extra length or strength in his own suits. The left-over “problem” hands are the ones that raise the 4th suit, and they tend to contain exactly three small cards in that suit.

Now, when Elwood described this, it all seemed well thought-through and sensible. But I'm not buying it 100% just yet. On this hand, for example, he would not raise clubs, he would bid 2NT. I could then show diamond support, and I suppose we might still get to slam. But I have to say, I'm less comfortable with that sequence. For one thing, I fear we might reach 6NT. That will probably make in practice, but it can go down, while 6D is very solid.

So what does a raise of the 4th suit mean to you?

The next hand was another slightly surprising top.



This presented no problems when (eventually) the SJ was led from dummy and got covered by the SQ. But we got a top when nobody else reached a slam. One pair even stopped in 3NT and went down.

It is something of a truism that big two-suited hands can be awkward to handle after a 2C opening. For us, since we use the Kokish Relay, the heart-spade combination is even more problematic. So maybe people were opening 1H, and that would make it very difficult to get to slam.

I don't disagree with the basic thesis, but I felt that anything less than a 2C opening just wouldn't do that hand justice. The result was that when I pulled 3NT to 4H, Agent 99 knew that she had too much to stop. Ten points opposite a 2C opening is a lot, and while the minor suit honors are perhaps of dubious value, the major suit honors have grown. I once had the computer generate a few hundred deals that included a 2C opening bid. My observation was that any time there was a positive response of about 8 hcp or more, you wanted to be in a slam. They don't always make, but looking at the two hands single-dummy, you wouldn't want to stay out of it. Agent 99 knows this, so she raised me to slam.

Misadventures In Manhattan

My Thursday evening games with Ralph often seem to produce some weird deals and even weirder results.

This one was just amusing.

East was end-played at trick one! She chose the D4, which I won in dummy with the DJ. Then SA and another spade, and the SQ appeared. So I ducked, of course, and there she was - end-played twice in the first four tricks.

This one was just amazing. Sitting North with West the dealer, I held: SJ HA982 DAKJ83 CAJ5

and the bidding proceeded

W    N    E    S

Pass 1D   1H   1S

2H   Dble Pass 4S

Pass Pass Pass

At favorable vulnerability, I was willing to take a swing at 2H. I have aces, I have four trumps and a singleton in partner's suit. Two down is worth more than our game (if we have one). But as good as my hand is, I don't know if I can make a move over 4S. Surely I must have something this good to chance the double? It sounds like partner has a long suit with nothing outside – can I visualize only one loser? Little did I know.

What a hand! I've never seen a ten-card suit before (in a randomly dealt hand). Naturally, 4S plus 3 was not one of our good scores.

Probably the best pair in the room had a horrible disaster against us.

I led the CQ, and declarer decided to cut down on ruffs by playing HA and another heart. Partner ditched a couple of diamonds while I was drawing trumps, so I was quickly able to claim down eight. I call that -800 the hard way. At another table, North liked his hand enough to double 4S. -1270 is another score you don't see too often.

I like being aggressive in the bidding, but sometimes I maybe take things a bit too far.

Just bidding 4S seemed pusillanimous, but 6S looked really ugly when I got a diamond lead. I actually managed to escape for down one, not that it helped the score.

I've tried a two-suited pre-empt before with some success, but this effort collected a big fat zero.

After two passes, I was faced with the question of what to open. Passing can't be right. It certainly appears as if LHO is about to bid spades, and I don't have much defence opposite a passed partner, unless our hands are a real misfit. Opening 2H seems wrong in several ways, so I see my main choices as being 1H and 3H. The three-level bid is unorthodox, but might present South with more of a problem, so I went for it. As you can see, the deal is a bit of a nightmare. Nobody can make anything, and 3H went down three.